Additional Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Babcock v. Clarke, (9th Cir., April 6, 2010), the 9th Circuit held that requiring an inmate to use his committed name along with his religious name on correspondence, intead of his religious name alone, and requiring staff to refer to him only by his committed name, does not violate RLUIPA or the free exercise clause.

In Holley v. California Department of Corrections, (9th Cir., April 5, 2010), the 9th Circuit held that California had not waived sovereign immunity in a damage suit by an inmate who claimed that prison regulations requiring him to wear short hair placed a substantial burden on his exercise of religion.

In Henderson v. Langenbrunner, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32558 (MD FL, April 2, 2010), a Florida federal district court rejected a Muslim inmate's complaint over a 35 minute delay in delivering his bagged meal for Ramadan.

In Perez v. New York State Department of Correctional Services, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32500 (ND NY, March 16, 2010), a New York federal magistrate judge rejected an inmate's claim that a strip frisk after a Catholic Family Day event deterred him from attending other Catholic religious services.

In Smith v. Graziano, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33878 (ND NY, April 6, 2010), a New York federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33811, March 16, 2010), and held that an inmate's free exercise rights and his rights under RLUIPA were not infringed when Protestant religious services were not held on two Sundays.

In Robinson v. Roper, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34286 (CD CA, April 7, 2010), a California federal district court adopted a magistrate's findings (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34281, Feb. 16, 2010), and found no violations of plaintiff's free exercise rights or rights under RLUIPA. Plaintiff, who was confined under the state's violent sexual predator law, complained that during a search of his room, his Bible, Koran and prayer rug were placed on the floor.

In Hazle v. Crofoot, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34108 (ED CA, April 6, 2010), a California federal district court held that parole and correctional officers were liable for violating an Atheist inmate's Establishment Clause rights by requiring him, as a condition of parole, to attend a religion-based 12-step program.

In Myles v. Wallace, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34684 (ND WV, April 8, 2010), a West Virginia federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112631, Nov. 7, 2008) and held that no substantial burden was placed on an inmate's free exercise when two orders of religious materials he placed and paid for were by mistake placed in the chapel library instead of being delivered to him.

RLUIPA Suit Challenges Denial of Rezoning For Islamic Learning Center

The Council on American-Islamic relations last week announced that it had filed a RLUIPA lawsuit in federal court in Chicago challenging DuPage County's rejection of a zoning permit for the Irshad Learning Center that would serve some 30 Shia Muslim families primarily of Middle Eastern origin. No reasons were given by the County Board for rejecting the Naperville location, and Muslim community members fear the decision was influenced by anti-Islamic attitudes. The Chicago Tribune reports that the county's Development Committee had approved the project, but the Zoning Committee voted against it. Anti-Muslim demonstrations took place outside the County Board meeting. Before the vote, opponents claimed the Center had financial ties to a foundation suspected of aiding Iran's nuclear weapons program. Proponents believe the county imposed higher standards on the school than it would have done for a non-Muslim institution.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Thomas Charles Berg, What Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty Claims Have in Common, (Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy, Forthcoming).
• Julie A. Oseid, The Power of Metaphor: Thomas Jefferson’s 'Wall of Separation between Church & State', (U of St. Thomas Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10-14, 2010).
• Thomas Charles Berg, Religious Displays and the Voluntary Approach to Church and State, (Oklahoma Law Review, Forthcoming).
• T. John O'Dowd, Pilate’s Paramount Duty: Constitutional 'Reasonableness' and the Restriction of Freedom of Speech and Assembly, (Comparative Constitutionalism In South Asia, Khilnani, Sunil, Raghavan, Vikram and Thiruvengadam, Arun, eds., Oxford Univ Press India, 2010).
• Richard W. Garnett, Religious Liberty, Church Autonomy, and the Structure of Freedom, (Christianity and Human Rights : An Introduction, John Witte, Jr. and Frank S. Alexander eds., pp. 226-238, Cambridge University Press, 2010).
• Nathan B. Oman, Bargaining in the Shadow of God’s Law: Islamic 'Mahr' Contracts and the Perils of Legal Specialization , (Wake Forest Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Yossi Nehushtan, Female Segregation for Religious Justifications: The Unfortunate Israeli Case, (Droit et Religions, Vol. 4, pp. 441-459, 2009-2010).
• Arnold H. Loewy, Intelligently Designing a Course in Intelligent Design, (February 22, 2010).
• John A. Humbach, Free Will Ideology: Experiments, Evolution and Virtue Ethics, (March 25, 2010).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Molly Greene, Goodbye to the Despot: Feldman on Islamic law in the Ottoman Empire, (Reviewing Noah Feldman, The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State), 35 Law & Social Inquiry 219-242 (2010).
• Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. XXV, No. 1 (2009-10) has recently appeared.
• Journal of Church & State, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Autumn 2009) has recently appeared.

British Religious Leaders Want Special Judicial Panel To Hear Religious Rights Cases

Today's London Times reports that Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, and other church leaders will support a motion being filed by attorneys for Christain relationship counsellor Gary McFarlane calling for a special Court of Appeals panel of five judges who understand religious issues to be appointed to hear McFarlane's appeal and future appeals involving religious rights. At issue in McFarlane's case is a ruling by the Employment Appeal Tribunal that religious discrimination prohibitions were not violated when McFarlane was dismissed by a counselling service for refusing to counsel same-sex couples. (See prior posting.) Critics of the court say that a series of rulings have shown a lack of understanding of Christian beliefs. They point especially to an opinion by Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls, rejecting a complaint by marriage registrar Lillian Ladele who was disciplined when she refused to perform civil partnership ceremonies for same-sex couples. (See prior posting.)

Dutch Supreme Court Tells Christian Political Party To Give Women Leadership Roles

According to AP, Netherlands Supreme Court on Friday rejected religious freedom arguments and ruled that the fundamentalist Christian inspired Political Reformed Party (SGP) must accept women in leadership roles. The court held that the party's policies are in conflict with the 1979 U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. SGP has held two or three seats in Parliament since the 1920's and says that its policy stems from Biblical values. After the decision was announced, SGP released its slate of all male candidates for national elections in June. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Minister-Social Worker's Claim Under Title VII Survives Motion To Dismiss

In Moore v. Metropolitan Human Service District, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34808 (ED LA, April 7, 2010), a Louisiana federal district court held that an ordained minister employed as a social worker at a state agency that provides services to individuals with addictive disorders stated a plausible religious discrimination claim under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Plaintiff Beulah Moore answered religious questions posed to her by patients. Her employer gave her an ultimatum to stop speaking about God at work, or else resign. The court held:

The Court finds that Metropolitan's argument that its conduct was appropriate because it prohibited Bible-based study at a state facility misses the point. Moore alleges that Metropolitan said she could not mention God at work.... If Moore's allegation is true-and the Court must assume that it is at this stage of the proceedings -a reasonable inference to draw is that Metropolitan prohibited Moore from mentioning God even when she was not speaking with Metropolitan clients. Such an unconditional prohibition could run afoul of Metropolitan's duty to reasonably accommodate Moore's religious beliefs. Moore's direct religious discrimination claim therefore survives Metropolitan's motion to dismiss.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone (10th Cir., April 2, 2010), the 10th Circuit held that a Muslim prisoner adequately demonstrated the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the denial of halal food, and the denial of halal meat for an Islamic feast, substantially burdened his religious exercise. The 10th Circuit in the case for the first time for its circuit defined "substantial burden" under RLUIPA. Its definition includes requiring or imposing substantial pressure on an individual to engage in, or refrain from, conduct that violates a sincerely held religious belief.

In Nasious v. Grayson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30409 (D CO, March 29, 2010), a Colorado federal district court agreed with a federal magistrate (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30498, Feb. 17, 2010), that the policy of a detention facility to issue a single eating utensil, a spoon, to each inmate for the inmate to keep did not substantially burden plaintiff's religious exercise. Plaintiff claimed that his Jewish faith required that his kosher meals be eaten with disposable eating utensils.

In Goodson v. Maggi, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30058 (WD PA, March 1, 2010), in an opinion largely focusing on other issues, a federal magistrate judge held that plaintiff, an inmate, had failed to allege how his inability to access a spiritual advisor and attend church services created a substantial burden or substantially impacted his ability to exercise a central tenet of his religion. However he was given an opportunity to amend his complaint.

In Blumenthal v. Armstrong, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30050 (WD MI, March 29, 2010), a Michigan federal district court adopted recommendations of a magistrate (2010 U.S. Dist LEXIS 20174, Feb. 10, 2010), and upheld a prison's decision to remove an inmate from receiving a kosher diet based on his lack of adherence to Jewish religious practices and his purchasing of non-kosher items from the prison's store.

In Massenburg v. Adams, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31226 (ED VA, March 31, 2010), a Virginia federal magistrate judge denied both defendants' motion to dismiss and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a damage action in which plaintiff, a member of the House of Israel, complained that he was given a job assignment that required him to work on his Sabbath.

In Pouncil v. Tilton, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31094 (ED CA, March 31, 2010), a California federal district court held that a Muslim prisoner serving a life sentence properly stated a claim under RLUIPA in his challenge to a rule that prohibited him, in violation of his Muslim faith, from having conjugal visits with his wife.

In Barendt v. Gibbons, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31004 (D NV, March 30, 2010), a Nevada federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31011, Feb. 11, 2010), holding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate a substantial burden on his free exercise of religion under RLUIPA. Plaintiff who is Jewish claimed that the nightly count of inmates took place at the time of pre-Shabbat candle lighting, barring the ability to hold a group ceremony until later.

In Leonard v. Louisiana, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31892 (WD LA, March 31, 2010), a Louisiana federal district court held that defendant's free exercise rights and his rights under RLUIPA were infringed by a prison's refusal to permit him to receive Nation of Islam's newspaper The Final Call solely because each issue contains "The Muslim Program" written by Elijah Muhammad.

In Strutton v. Meade, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31944 (ED MO, March 31, 2010), a Missouri federal district court rejected complaints by an inmate being held indefinitely under the state's violent sexual predator law that a second Wiccan religious service each week was not permitted because there was no volunteer leader. It also rejected on pleading grounds his complaint that at one time he was not permitted to make Wiccan objects in Arts and Crafts class. Finally it rejected his claim that pressure from fellow-inmates at one AA meeting to recite the serenity prayer amounted to an Establishment Clause violation.

Mintun v. Peterson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31598 (D ID, March 30, 2010), involves a claim by a gay inmate that he was prevented from participating in the inmate-run choir or Christian Fellowship services because of beliefs of fellow inmates that homosexuality is a sin. An Idaho federal district court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's free exercise and RLUIPA claims for lack of evidence. The court rejected plaintiff's retaliation and equal protection claims.

In Levy v. Holinka, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31743 (WD WI, Marach 30, 2010), a Wisconsin federal district court rejected RFRA, free exercise and establishment clause claims of a Hebrew Israelite prisoner who complained that he was not permitted to wear a turban.

Unique Arrangement For Catholic Schools Converted To Charter Schools

In Indianapolis, Indiana last Monday, officials approved the conversion of two Catholic elementary schools into taxpayer-supported charter schools. According to today's Louisville (KY) Courier-Journal, unlike similar conversions in New York City and Washington, D.C. (see prior postings 1, 2) where the charter schools were then operated by secular organizations, in Indianapolis they will be operated by ADI Charter Schools, Inc., a non-profit group organized by the Catholic archdiocese. The schools will end religious education classes during the school day and will remove or cover religious symbols and displays. They will teach a secular version of the character education program already in use. Bookkeeping for state funds will be done off-site.

11th Circuit: Ministerial Exception Doctrine Applies To Suits Under Section 1981

In McCants v. Alabama-West Florida Conference of the United Methodist Church, Inc., (11th Cir., April 5, 2010), the 11th Circuit dismissed a suit brought by an African-American former pastor of the United Methodist Church against his former church employer. The lawsuit, brought under 42 USC Sec. 1981, charged racial discrimination and retaliation in preventing him from being reappointed pastor of two congregations. The court held that the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses require the "ministerial exception" doctrine to extend to suits under Section 1981, as well as to Title VII lawsuits.

5th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Religious Candy Cane Lawsuit

On Wednesday, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Moran v. Plano Independent School District. (Audio recording of oral arguments.) Last December, the 5th Circuit remanded to the district court the question of whether school rules in effect prior to 2005 that restricted the distribution of materials by students were constitutional. The rules were challenged after they were applied to bar a students from distributing religious themed candy cane pens. While new rules adopted in 2005 were upheld, the question of nominal damages against school officials for enforcing the old rules remained open. (See prior posting.) The district court on remand ruled against school officials. As reported by the Dallas Morning News, the appeal argued Wednesday focused on the question of whether the school principals involved had qualified immunity for their conduct. This turns on whether constitutional rules regarding the free speech rights of elementary school students to distribute non-curricular materials were "clearly established." During oral arguments, both sides avoided answering a question from Judge Catharina Hayes, who asked: "Why does Plano seem to have so many issues?" Liberty Institute, which represents the students in the case, issued a press release on the oral arguments.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Applies To Both Congregational and Hierarchical Churches

In Ad Hoc Committee of Parishioners of Our Lady of the Son Catholic Church, Inc. v. Reiss, (AZ App., Feb. 23, 2010), an Arizona appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine applies to congregational churches in the same way that it applies to hierarchical ones. The court dismissed claims that Father Paul Andrade was improperly appointed as priest and Board Member of the separate Tridentine congregation because he was not validly ordained before 1968, as required by the church's articles.. It also dismissed a second claim that the Board improperly removed Father Andrade, holding that his firing was a purely ecclesiastical matter. Finally it dismissed a dispute among factions in the church over use of church funds.

Justice Stevens Announces Retirement

The Washington Post reports that today U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens notified President Obama that he will retire one day after the end of the current Supreme Court term. (Full text of Stevens resignation letter.) Justice Stevens religion clause jurisprudence is reviewed in the following articles: Eduardo M. Penalever, Treating Religion as Speech: The Religion Clause Jurisprudence of Justice Stevens (SSRN, November 2005); Christopher L. Eisgruber, Justice Stevens, Religious Freedom, and the Value of Equal Membership, 74 Fordham L. Rev. 2177 (2006); Robert F. Nagel, Justice Stevens' Religion Problem, (June/July 2003 First Things).

New Jersey Supreme Court Defines Cleric-Penitent Privilege

In a decision handed down Wednesday, the New Jersey Supreme Court, for the first time since N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-23 was amended in 1994, defined the scope of the cleric-penitent privilege. In State of New Jersey v. J.G., (NJ Sup. Ct., April 7, 2010), in a 6-1 decision, the court held that:

the cleric-penitent privilege applies when, under the totality of the circumstances, an objectively reasonable penitent would believe that a communication was secret, that is, made in confidence to a cleric in the cleric's professional character or role as a spiritual advisor.

At issue in the case is a conversation between a defendant accused of sexually abusing his daughters and a pastor that defendant had known for over thirty years. The state argued that the pastor was not acting as a spiritual advisor, but was acting to protect defendant's children. The court reversed and remanded the case since it was unclear whether the trial court had applied an objective reasonableness standard.

Justice Rivera-Soto dissented, arguing that the majority has "secularized" the privilege, based on an "unexpressed but nevertheless palpable fear of entangling itself in religious controversy." He urged a different standard: "in order for the cleric-penitent privilege to make sense, the question of whether the communication was made 'in confidence' must be informed and governed by the fundamental tenets and practices of the religious belief represented by the cleric and espoused by the penitent." He also objected that the parties had not been given an opportunity to develop their evidence in light of the new standard announced by the majority.

Anti-Abortion Tax Protester Sent To Jail In Canada

In Canada, a judge in Fredericton, New Brunswick has ordered anti-abortion tax protester, David Little, to jail for 66 days for refusing to pay $3000 in fines imposed when he was convicted of failing to file tax returns. According to yesterday's Winnipeg Free Press, Little, a 66-year old Roman Catholic, says he will never file a tax return so long as there is tax-funded abortion in Canada. He now faces a new charge for failing to follow a judge's order to file the past delinquent returns.

Priest's Suit Against Bishop Dismissed On Church Autonomy Grounds

A Nevada trial court has dismissed on church autonomy grounds a lawsuit brought by Rev. Richard DeMolen, a Catholic priest, against the Diocese of Reno and Bishop Randolph Calvo. The priest claimed that Bishop Calvo defamed him in a letter sent to parishioners. However the court said that the letter was part of the church's internal decision-making process. Fr. DeMolen was fired when he sought a court protective order after receiving a death threat he believed was from someone in the parish. According to yesterday's Reno Gazette Journal, the court held that the First Amendment precludes it from becoming involved in a contractual dispute between an employee and the religious organization that employs him.

British Nurse Loses In Bid To Wear Cross On Necklace

Earlier this week, an Employment Tribunal in Britain upheld a decision by a hospital banning Christian nurse Shirley Chaplin from wearing a cross on a chain around her neck. According to Wednesday's BBC News, the hospital's dress code bars front-line staff from wearing necklaces because patients might grab them. Chaplin argued that the ban prevents her from expressing her religious beliefs. However the Tribunal found no direct or indirect religious discrimination. Chaplin intends to appeal, saying that Christians feel "quite persecuted" by the decision.

Indian Court Rejects Government Involvement In Islamic Bank

In the Indian state of Kerala, a 2-judge bench of the High Court held that neither the state nor any of its instrumentalities may be involved with the creation of an Islamic banking institution. According to today's Business Standard and The Peninsula, the ruling came in a public interest lawsuit that alleged government involvement in a Shariah-compliant bank would amount to unconstitutional preference for one religion. The Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation (KSIDC) had planned to take a 13% interest in the Islamic bank. However under the ruling, promoters may go ahead and organize the bank without state involvement, so long as the proper procedures are followed and the required permissions obtained.

Claims Against Controversial School Teacher Continue After Summary Judgment Motion Is Denied

In Doe v. Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education, (SD OH, April 6, 2010), an Ohio federal district court ruled on several summary judgment motions in the lawsuit against controversial middle school science teacher John Freshwater by one of his students. The lawsuit alleged violations of the Establishment Clause. Four copies of the Ten Commandments were posted in Freshwater's classroom. He kept his personal Bible on his desk, and a box of Bibles were stored in the back of the classroom for use by the school's Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Freshwater was the faculty advisor to FCA. The student also alleged a battery growing out of an experiment with a Tesla coil which allegedly left a mark on his arm in the shape of a Christian cross. The court denied plaintiff summary judgment on these claims, finding there were genuine issues of fact as to whether the Establishment Clause was violated and as to whether the Tesla coil experiment constituted a battery. However the court dismissed Freshwater's counterclaims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Yesterday's Mt. Vernon (OH) News reported on the decision. (See prior related posting.)

Federal Lawsuit Challenges Capital Appropriations To Religious Organizations

Chicago activist Rob Sherman has taken another step in his campaign to challenge the state legislative appropriations to houses of worship, parochial schools and religious institutions that were placed in last year's Illinois capital budget. (See prior posting.) On Wednesday he filed a federal lawsuit against the governor and two other state officials seeking to enjoin disbursement of appropriations to 155 groups, or to force recoupment of any funds already distributed. The lawsuit also raises questions about 20 other grants. The complaint (full text) in Sherman v. Quinn, (CD IL, April 7, 2010), alleges that these appropriations violate the federal Establishment Clause. It also alleges that they violate provisions of the Illinois Constitution that require public funds to be used only for public purposes (Art. VIII, Sec. 1), that prohibit forcing any person to support a place of worship (Art. I, Sec. 3), and bar appropriations in aid of any church or for sectarian purposes (Art. X, Sec. 3).

First Shariah-Compliant Space Satellite Insurance Policy Is Written

Yahsat, a satellite communications company owned by the government of Abu Dhabi, has broken new ground by purchasing a Shariah-compliant insurance policy as part of the insurance package on the two satellites it plans to launch in 2011. Space News reported yesterday that the policy supplements two larger conventional policies previously acquired. The new Shariah-compliant policy written by Abu Dhabi-based Methaq Takaful Insurance Co. was reviewed by a Shariah supervisory board to assure that it complies with Islamic law. The board also examined the intended use and customers of the satellites. The policy is seen as a prototype for future space insurance coverage in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Muslim world.